Hi Andy, Yea, I know what you mean. And before DXBase the software I used was ARRL Log copywrite 1977 and I was so disappointed when they went to ARRL Log copywrite 1988. The screen, ah, PAGE looked so cluttered with separate fields, ah, COLUMNS for 'Date' and 'Time'. And I missed the separate fields, ah, COLUMNS for 'Station Called' and 'Called By'. Searching for QSOs was very slow on both versions of this software; moving my ruler down the screens, ah, PAGES was very slow. Oh the tedium of paper log software. And the I/O devices, ah, pens and pencils, were rather slow and sometimes difficult to read DXBase 3.1 was way ahead of either of these.
Art W2NRA ----- Original Message ----- From: "Andrew J. O'Brien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, April 10, 2004 11:55 AM Subject: [DXBase] DXBase 3.1 > I don't mean to be unkind to all the efforts over the years....I was > wondering if anyone would agree with me that the best version of DXbase was > 3.1 ? Maybe it was because of the newness of PC logging but I still fondly > recall the thrill of first operating with 3.1 and I still feel the display > is better than any logging program today (including current DXB). > > Andy K3UK
